mcp-abap-adt

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Returns run_id for status/result queries,' which hints at asynchronous execution and follow-up actions, but fails to cover critical aspects like required permissions, potential side effects (e.g., system load), error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's action and output. There is no wasted language, making it efficient and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of the tool (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on output format beyond the 'run_id', error conditions, execution context (e.g., synchronous vs. asynchronous), and how to interpret the various input parameters. This makes it inadequate for a tool with such rich input structure and behavioral implications.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. With a schema description coverage of 50%, the schema documents some parameters (e.g., 'tests', 'title', 'context') but leaves others (e.g., 'scope', 'risk_level', 'duration') with minimal description. The description does not compensate for this gap, so it meets the baseline score of 3, as it neither adds value nor significantly detracts from the schema's coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Start an ABAP Unit test run') and the resource ('for provided class test definitions'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'RunUnitTest' or 'CreateCdsUnitTest', which might have overlapping or similar functionalities, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'RunUnitTest' or 'CreateCdsUnitTest'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction beyond the basic action.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.